I don't understand the Cohen testimony concern

[Pototan]

First of all, a 1:36 phone call can easily cover two subjects. Cohen tells Keith that he's being harassed online. Keith says, "do you have his phone number". Cohen says "yes". Keith says, "text it to me". Cohen, "Is the boss there?". Keith, "Ya". Cohen, "Let me talk to him". Trump: "Ya". Cohen, "You know that thing with Stormy we talked about in your office with Allen?" Trump: "Ya". Cohen; "It's all set." Trump. "Great. Just get it done." I don't know if this was the conversation, but the timeline is certainly possible for a minute and a half conversation on two subjects.

In addition, Cohen and Trump had at least a half dozen other telephone conversations on the subject in which Trump could have participated in and confirmed the conspiracy.

I expect this to be dealt with in re-direct.

[czarjak]

1. Tangled webs always start with the Weaver.

[Pototan]

2. I'm assuming you mean Trump.

[czarjak]

7. He's the reason for the treason.

[Demobrat]

3. Well considering that exchange was the closest

the defense came to scoring anything resembling a point throughout the whole trial, it’s no wonder the talking heads are talking it up.

Otherwise it would be just another boring day of watching the prosecution eat their lunch.

Not that it was a great moment, but in the context of the whole trial I don’t see the hand-wringing either.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

4. K+R

[Raven123]

5. We have to understand the media observers

They were gushing over Pecker, mesmerized by Daniels, and now pearl clutching over Cohen. Perhaps the defense has been sooooo bad that when they found something not revealed by direct, it just shocked the observers. They are rather schizophrenic, IMO.

I do respect Andrew Weissman, who pointed out the prosecution focus on the phone call you mention, allowing the defense to question the facts as presented. Fair enough.

We can all rest knowing it will be dealt with Monday

[Johnny2X2X]

6. Cohen was not a good witness

People can hem and haw all they want, but this trial was going very well for the prosecution until Cohen was cross examined. He muddied the waters, the defense did a good job of getting him to muddy the waters. The crimes became less of a focus and it's all a bit confusing now.

I have been following pretty closely. Cohen has been a disaster, the jury can't trust anything he said, the case would have been better off without his testimony.

[UTUSN]

8. Not following closely, but he had seemed to heve gotten good reviews till that last question

where they produced COHEN texts from before and after the call that said the subject was only about his complaints about the 14 year old harassing him, the texts not mentioning the payment scheme at all being taken care of and that he didn't talk to Drumpf, tying Drumpf to the scheme, in that call: Perjury NOW where he said he talked to Drumpf, not from the past. Some of the "concern" of the pundits is the Legalism in Latin, If you don't believe ONE thing everything else might be doubted, and that the judge's final charge to the jury (should?) include that concept.

The little punditry I've heard is that this might be cleared up in redirect and that most of his testimony relevant to the fraud charges is corroborated by documentary evidence that is in the record from other sources.